Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Will Beback

Personal note: I am not a current or former follower of Prem Rawat, nor of any similar spiritual teacher. Neither do I adhere to any belief system opposed to Prem Rawat. Nor do I know anyone personally who is current or former member, or who has a strong opinion about the topic. Though I recall reading about him in the newspaper a long time ago, I had no other knowledge of him before editing Wikipedia.

Noticeboards, mediation, and RfCs since 2008

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence#Noticeboards, mediation, and RfCs since 2008

Evidence regarding Momento

Tendentious editing and edit warring

Momento has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring:

• February 9, 2008 24 hours (Disruption: Prem Rawat)
• February 14, 2008 24 hours (Edit warring)
• See also 1RR_on_Prem_Rawat March 14, 2008
• May 18, 2008 72 hours [unblocked after 8 hours]
• May 26, 2008 72 hours (Arbitration enforcement: [1])

Deletes sourced information without cause: [2][3][4]

Keeps removing material that has been discussed at length, and for which sources are well-known.[5]

He adds text and then complains about it as an example of my "POV editing".

In one edit he adds more material, strongly insisting it's necessary for NPOV. Another edit, he removes the same material as incompatible with NPOV.

Sourcing issues

• The source is reality.[6]

Makes repeated claims that mainstream newspapers and news sources aren't reliable sources, despite input from WP:RSN

Claims that NY Times is not a reliable source. [7][8][9][10][11][12]

Claims that LA Times is not a reliable source.[13] Calls material taken straight from it "extremely poorly sourced"[14]

Claims that Rolling Stone is not a reliable source.[15]

Says that Saturday Review and Current Biography are "two pathetic sources".

Argues that UPI is an unsuitable source.[16]

Says that assertions reported in multiple sources are just repeating each other.[17]

Claims that scholars are wrong, or that multiple sources are simply copying each other.[18][19]

Asserts that a spokesman is not a suitable source.[20]

Removes sourced material, claiming WP:REDFLAG: [21] Changes sourced material to say the opposite: [22]

Says, "Please do not remove sourced material without discussion." Removes sourced material, saying, "removed unsourced material".

Removing sourced material: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

Keeps adding quotes from a single source ("...more Levine...", "added more Levine", "added more", "added more ...", "added more...", "added more Levine") and then complains about overuse of the source.("...most encyclopedias would use sources such as Levine's ...sparingly but it is the major source for this article with more than 50 quotes.")

Insists Cagan is "no problem" despite ongoing questions.[30] Insists that Cagan is the most reliable source no matter how many other sources, scholarly or journalistic, contradict her.[31] After a thorough investigation which showed how unreliable Cagan is as a source, Momento continues to suggest using the book as a source for self-serving material.[32]

Adds more citations to Cagan, some of which contradict a more reliable source: [33][34]

Argues that a disputed affidavit is a reliable source: [35]

Argues for limiting or eliminating individual scholars as sources.[36][37][38][39][40][41]

Argues against using Christian scholars."It is not just that these scholars are Christian, most of them are agents of the Church."[42][43][44][45][46][47] (old but relevant:[48][49])

Argues for deleting material from scholars who disagree with each other.[50]

Deletes foreign language scholars. (old but relevant: [51])

Makes pointy, incorrect attribution: [52]

Complains about splitting material from a single source,[53][54] does the same himself.[55]

Refusing to acknowledge a consensus

The 14,000 word discussion about Balyogeshwar is an example of how Momento refuses to acknowledge a consensus of involved editors, or even input from uninvolved editors.

He keeps removing the material:

• 20:17, February 17, 2008 (Inappropriate for lede, not mentioned in article)
• 22:08, February 18, 2008
• 10:19, February 19, 2008 (Don't not post uncited material)
• 10:44, January 26, 2009 (focusing on the present as per Cla88)
• 01:27, February 7, 2009 (Balyogeshwar removed to childhood section as per talk)

Insists that material didn't have consensus even though it had been in the article for a year and had been thoroughly discussed at the time of addition.[56]

Comes up with excuses for ignoring results of an RfC, saying it was "dishonestly framed",[57] and for why a consensus of editors isn't valid.[58]

Makes essentially the same proposal year after year:

• "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India,.... 2008
• "Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and Balyogeshwar in India, ...." 2009

Assuming bad faith and making uncivil comments

• The trouble with giving one millimeter of leeway in this article is that someone will drive a truck through it.
• Will, I've assumed, maybe incorrectly, that English is your first language. But since you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, it probably isn't. If so, you'll have to accept that people with a greater grasp of English words, grammar and usage and an extensive knowledge of Rawat will see that this article is very biased both in structure and source selection....[59]
• It's just another case of trawling through newspaper articles until you can find "fortress" "marble" "chandeliers" and sticking them in to promote a POV. ... [60]
• ..Cagan did a lot of research. For example, she reveals that the three leaders of the Australian anti-Rawat group have all been found guilty of illegal behavior by Australian courts... This is why some people will make a huge effort to try and discredit her.[61]
• "..And that of course is the major problem with this article and your POV. What Rawat says or does is not nearly as important to you as what some crazy follower does." [62]
• ...This article was written by and according to WillBeback's anti-Rawat POV and everyone else has been playing catchup ever since.... [63]
• .. Intelligent and NPOV mediating with Prem Rawat articles which still annoys the anti Rawat crew.[64]

Over-reaching BLP claims

Deleting text from other editors' talk page comments: "removed according to BLP" But the comments weren't such a violation that he can't quote them a half hour later in a complaint.[65]

Though he portrays himself as a defender of BLP, he has repeatedly inserted poorly sourced negative material about living persons such as ex-followers and estranged family members.[66][67][68][69][70][71][72] The latter includes a source, Cagan, that editors had previously agreed to use only for non-contentious assertion and which was later found to be outright questionable.[73]

Other spurious deletions on BLP grounds: [74][75][76]

Other problematic behaviors

Forum shopping: When no one would block me at WP:AE, he posts to another page trying to get me blocked.[77]

Interferes with Millennium '73 FAC.

In addition to objecting strenuously to the existence and contents of the article, Momento made edits contrary to the suggestions of FA reviewers. They suggested having fewer quotations, and yet he kept adding more, more, and more quotes, even redundant ones.

Obstructionist: [78]

Unhelpful editing practices

Momento repeatedly transcribes blocks of text from sources into articles without marking them as quotations, sometimes making a few small changes in the text, which is a form of plagiarism.[79][80][81][82][83][84]

He delete text while leaving sources, effectively moving the citations to other sentences and thereby scrambling the referencing.[85][86] Even claiming that it's unsourced.[87] And changed the source for a quotation while leaving the old citation.[88] Splits assertions from their citations.[89][90] Adds unsourced quotation.[91]

Ex-Premie-Org dispute

One of the long running disputes has been over linking to, or even mentioning, Ex-Premie.Org (EPO). The dispute also involved other websites, both pro and con, some of which contained derogatory materials about ex-followers. To avoid this dispute I suggested, and several editors agreed, to limit the article to a single external link to the subject's personal website.[92][93][94] I have personally removed many links, including those to EPO, to maintain that compromise. Because EPO hosts a large number of "convenience copies" of copyrighted materials, it probably should not be linked according to WP:EL. However I do not believe that linking to it would violate WP:BLP, and therefore deleting the link should not be exempt from 3RR.

Momento deletes even properly sourced references to it on BLP grounds.[95][96][97][98][99]

January EPO deletions [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]

Earlier EPO deletions: [105][106]

Discussion and consensus about adding text referring to the website: [107]

Single purpose editor with a conflict of interest and a strong POV

Since he started editing in 2005, Momento has made 1996 main space edits, at least 1855 of them to Rawat-related articles.[108] Since the close of the ArbCom case in May 2008, Momento has made about 1500 total edits, less than a dozen of which have been to pages unrelated to Prem Rawat-related topics. [109]

Momento responds to any insertion of negative material about Prem Rawat by calling it POV pushing.[110] He is quick to call even the most minor edits as a "POV edit". He has repeatedly deleted sourced, neutrally-presented information that is in any way negative.[111][112][113][114](long discussion of the material before Momento deleted it.[115]) [116][117][118]

There is also evidence that Momento has an undisclosed conflict of interest. He has added material that he wrote without identifying himself to other editors as the author. He has added material written by a close associate that he knew was self-published. When another user called him by his real first name, he spread complaints and demands that the editors be punished, but didn't seek to have the information oversighted. I have sent evidence about these matters to the ArbCom privately.

Tag teaming

• [119]

Summary

Momento is a tendentious, single purpose editor who pushes a POV on a topic with which he has a very strong connection. He picks fights rather than seeking consensus, ignores consensus when one forms, and assumes bad faith on the part of other editors. He deletes properly sourced and neutrally presented material, and even edit wars, using BLP as an excuse. He engages in poor editing practices, including making biased appraisals of the reliability of sources, mixing up citations, and plagiarising quotations. I do not believe that this editor can function in a neutral or objective manner on this topic.

Evidence regarding Rumiton

Makes negative personal remarks

Rumiton was topic banned for one week in August 2008 due to personal attacks.[120]

(NikWright2 has a more comprehenisve list at #Tendentious Editing by Rumiton below).

• A disingenuous argument, it seems to me. [121] (disingenous: adj., lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere)

• The actual meaning of the name DOES really matter, as not all Wikipedia readers are as wilfully ignorant of foreign languages as some editors here. (Did you get my little joke?) (UTC)[122]

• A reliable (scholarly) secondary source would... include this kind of context... A Wikipedia editor with an ax to grind probably would not. [123]

• This seems to be the age-old problem of intelligent editing.[124]

Remarks about a living person: Complains in December that mentioning Wavy Gravy is a part of a "repellant hodge-podge of ill-informed opinions". A month later he takes a different position about Wavy Gravy: "I never heard of this guy and assumed he was just another unregenerate old 70s wanker..."

Asserts his opinion or knowledge outweighs sources

Deletes information cited to prominent Indian journalist Khushwant Singh.[125]

• This guy is yet another sensationalist secular journalist. By calling his weekly column "With malice towards one and all" he forfeits the right to be taken seriously. Apart from that, I was at the Delhi ashram and his claims are outrageously exaggerated. ... My OR, but still the truth. If he said that stuff (feeding thousands) about the new Mehrauli ashram (and left out the nonsense about chandeliers etc) he would be closer to the mark. [126]

Says he'll delete a study whose finding he thinks is unreasonable.[127] Adds "philanthropist" to lead with no sources or prior discussion.[128] Later says he added it because the subject's activity "qualifies him". ("Philanthropist" was first added the same day by Momento to replace other sourced and discussed material ("Balyogeshwar", etc.).[129])

Deletes "Lord of the Universe" from lead, which has numerous sources and was discussed extensively.[130] (discussions: User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4, Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1#Crowned Lord of the Universe, Lord of the Universe 31 May 2008)

Complains about using a scholar in a peer-reviewed journals as a source. Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1#Crowned Lord of the Universe

Complains about using sociologists as sources.[131][132][133]

Complains about scholars being too hard to understand.[134][135]

Argues against using foreign language sources. (old but relevant: [136][137])

Argues against using Christian scholars. [138][139](old but relevant:[140])

Complains about sources that don't have "first-hand experience of the subject".[141]

Argues against following guidelines and research. Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 40#प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत and Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive_39#Images.

Describes about one unsympathetic source as "hysteria", even though it was written by a leading Indian journalist, and published by both India's largest weekly magazine and a leading textbook publisher.[142] In the case of a sympathetic source, he says that it is the reputation of the publisher alone that determines reliability.[143]

Keeps changing sourced quotations because he believes they contain typos.[144] [145] Says that we should delete it if we can't re-write it to fit his perception of what it should say.[146]

Reinserts material sourced only to a primary source (U.S. Patent Office): [147]

Deletes or alters significant sourced material without giving proper summary or reason: [148][149]

Overreaching BLP claims

Asserts that any article linked to a BLP is part of a BLP.

• Not if it remains linked from the Prem Rawat article. It is still part of a BLP.[150]

Restores material against consensus

Reinserts citation to Cagan for positive material, even after substantial questions to the accuracy of that source.[151] This material makes a contentious claim about a living person, Prem Rawat's brother and rival.

Summary

Rumiton gave this good advice about an unrelated topic back in 2007.

• One thing to consider when writing is "How might a competitor or a disgruntled ex-employee respond to this article?" Remember they will have the same editing rights that you have. If you write with meticulous neutrality and respect for sources you might, among other things, save yourself a time consuming and harrowing edit war down the line. [152]

If that had been followed on this topic we wouldn't be here now.

Bloc voting

Instances of voting together
		Jossi	Momento	Rumiton	Rainer P
WP:AFD//Past teachings of Prem Rawat	[153]	K	K		K
WP:AFD/Ex-premie.org	[154]	D	D	D
WP:AFD/James V. Downton	[155]	K	K	K
WP:AFD/List of groups referred to as cults (6th)	[156]	D		D
WP:AFD/The Prem Rawat Foundation	[157]	d	D		K
WP:DR/List of groups referred to as cults	[158]	E		E
WP:IFD/Image:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg	[159]	d	D	D	D
WP:MFD/User:Dev Bhikar/Bhikar 1	[160]	D	D	D
WP:RFD/The Prem Rawat Foundation → Prem Rawat	[161]	K	K
WP:CFD/Category:Alleged cults	[162]	D	D
WP:CFD/Category:Leaders of alleged cults	[163]	D	D
Total number of XFDs user has participated in:		Many	9	6	3
Pct in which user agreed with Jossi:			100%	100%	100%
WP:FAC/Millennium '73	[164]	O	O
Total number of FACs user has participated in:		at least 2	1
Pct in which user agreed with Jossi:			100%
WP:RFA/Cirt	[165]	O	O
WP:RFA/Vassyana	[166]	S	S	S
WP:ACE 2008/Vassyana	[167]	S	S	S
Total number of RFAs or ACEs user has participated in:		Many	3	2
Pct in which user agreed with Jossi:			100%	100%

Reply to Rumiton

Rumiton claims that I have "tried to lower the tone of this article, to make it parrot the views and tone of the tabloid press." As evidence of me parroting the views of the "tabloid press" he cites edits in which I added factual material from the Associated Press, Harper's, and The New Republic. It is incorrect, to say the least, to label those sources "tabloid press". Rumiton even complimented one of the sources, saying "it's an elegantly worded portrait of the Maharaji I knew and still know."[168] This is a spurious complaint.

Rumiton also complains that I didn't promptly remove a (non) link to Ex-Premie.Org added by another editor on January 20 even though I was in the middle of an announced vacation.[169] Claiming that I am at fault for failing to revert an edit while on vacation seems like another spurious complaint. For the record, I've repeatedly removed links from the article to enforce the one-link compromise agreed upon in early 2008.[170][171][172] Whether the link is a "radical violation of BLP" is a matter in dispute and may need to be decided by the ArbCom.

Reply to Momento

Momento calls me a "fiercely anti-Rawat editor",[173] but provides no evidence whatsoever. I've never made any disparaging comments about Prem Rawat, his teachings, organizations, or followers, IIRC.

Momento has made at least a dozen accusations of harassment since October 2008.

15:56, 1 October 2008 21:38, 1 October 2008 19:24, 3 November 2008 22:13, 7 November 2008 22:23, 7 November 2008 23:06, 23 November 2008

05:35, 23 January 2009 20:38, 26 January 2009 22:00, 27 January 2009 23:28, 28 January 2009 00:04, 6 February 2009 01:22, 8 February 2009

I've never seen another editor agreeing with him that my behavior has been harassing or otherwise inappropriate. No one has warned me publicly or privately that I've stepped over the line. I have always stayed civil, I've tried to keep personal issues off of article talk pages, and have remained focused on improving the project.

Momento seems to forget what he's written, then accuses me of misrepresenting him.[174][175] Even though I apologized for the "error",[176] Momento insisted that my error was the main topic of article talk page.[177]

Momento's "Example 1" repeats an exchange from May 2008. There had been a dispute over whether a memoir by a former member, Sophia Collier, was a reliable source, and how it should be used. Momento had argued that some assertions in it could not be used. Later, in an unrelated matter, he deleted an assertion from a signed AP article with a conflicting assertion cited to Collier, writing "Eye witness trumps all".[178] I questioned him on this. By the end of the discussion, Jossi, Jayen and I all agreed that Collier was not a suitable source for that material, so my point was valid and Momento was making an incorrect policy call.[179] The fact that I questioned his editing choice he now calls harassment. Momento has used this exchange over and over again to attack me or to change the subject.[180][181][182][183]

Momento has made similar accusations of harassment against user:Maelefique,[184] user:Revera[185], user:Francis Schonken[186]

Addendum: Momento has added an accusation of edit warring due to some edits back in October 2008.[187] While he says my edits were "done with no discussion", in fact the material I added was taken from the mediation pages where they had had extensive disussion. The proposed intro had gone through 22 drafts[188] and generated 16,000 words of discussion.[189] The "lifestyle" section went through 14 drafts[190] and over 41,000 words of discussion,[191] which followed a 22,000-word discussion.[192] Despite all of those drafts and tens of thousands of words of discussion, we were not able to achieve consensus in informal mediation and as a result I requested that we move to formal mediation, which didn't work out. Rather than lose all of the effort that we'd put into drafting those sections, I added them to the article. In the subsequent discussions on the article talk page, we worked out our differences and achieved consensus.[193] The deletions of sourced, neutrally presented material by editors is characteristic of the problems with this topic.

Momento clims that I "vigorously supported" supported Francis' AE submissions,[194] but in fact I asked Francis to withdraw his latest complaint because we were already seeking mediation.[195] Momento complains that I wrote an article, Millennium '73, in a sandbox. That article has now passed Good Article review with relatively few significant changes (though much thrashing), so the complaint seems spurious. He also says that my first edit to the topic was to revert to a version from a year earlier. I was actually restoring a version from twenty minutes earlier, which Janice Rowe had reverted with no explanation except, "better".[196]

Reply to Jayen466

Jayen may have forgotten, but the initial draft at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7 was the outcome of a lengthy discussion at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Archive1#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle. Before we did that work, the issue was almost entirely omitted from the article despite being part of the subject's notability and, in the words of one scholar, a topic of "considerable controversy"; see Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. Jayen calls the discussions of this material "mostly amicable and productive", but he perhaps forgets the charges of bias and bad faith,[197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205] and the repeated objections by Momento to even considering the matter.[206][207][208][209][210] Jayen forgets Momento's insistence on using a poor quality source,[211] even when that source contradicted a scholar and mainstream newspapers,[212] or his insistence that his personal knowledge proved scholars and news sources were incorrect.[213] Jayen also forgets Rumiton's disruptive and undiscussed deletion of material that had been stable in the article for months, and which had been the product of another legnthy discussion,[214] in order to prove a point.[215] Jayen calls it productive, but we never achieved final consensus during the mediation on any version, despite writing 64,000 words over two months discussing it. This another example of stonewalling by some editors to keep negative material out of the article, no matter how well-sourced and or how much a part of the mainstream view of the subject it may be.

Jayen notes that some of the diffs provided by me or other editors here cover older edits. Two points: first, some of the problem behaviors have been going on for a while, and so older diffs are necessary to show the pattern. Second, by my count 68 out of 107 diffs provided by Momento are for edits in February 2008. Obviously, that was an important month for the topic as it was when the Register article came out that brought new editors to the topic.

Evidence presented by Momento

Francis Schonken, Will Beback and Msalt deny having an anti-Rawat bias but they and Nik Wright2, have frequently rejected consensus, edit warred and made fraudulent complaints to advance their anti-Rawat POV, including doing whatever they can to try and drive me away from Wikipedia. The most obvious manifestation of this is that WB, Ms and NikW have not presented any evidence against FS.

History

The history leading up to the first RfA is available here.[216]

Francis Schonken

Francis Schonken has an extraordinary history of consensus breaking edit warring. His first Rawat edit of 2008 on Feb 8 inserted 30,000 bytes of contentious material into the article without discussion or consensus.[217] Despite objections he inserted it again. [218] On Feb 12, Francis Schonken inserted 26,000 bytes of material [219] without discussion. On Feb 13, after discussion [220] WillBeback removed all links except for one [221] where upon Francis Schonken kept reinserting sites whenever they were removed. [222],[223],[224][225][226][227][228][229]

On Feb 17, FS inserted "Balyogeshwar" into the lead without discussion or consensus.[230] And despite objections on the talk page [231][232] FS inserted "Balyogeshwar" 5 times without consensus. [233][234][235][236][237]

As soon as protection ended FS is at it again, removing important sourced material and the source that supports it, saying "sloppy editing".[238] FS removes again and again.[239][240] No comment from WB or Ms about FS's editing.

Despite FS's own edit history he has filed six complaints against me in 12 months with only one negative result.[241][242][243][244][245][246] The last two are totally fraudulent. The first AE complaint is vigorously supported by WB. [247] PhilKnight concludes "I've read this discussion, and looked at the article history, and to be perfectly honest, I can't see anything block worthy. Yes, the assertion that you were edit warring is, at best, an exaggeration. However, beyond indicating that Francis's should avoid making spurious reports in future, I don't believe that I could justify any further action."[248] But FS makes a second one, also vigorously supported by WB and Ms.[249] PhilKnight says "Francis, to be perfectly honest, I'm considering whether I should give you a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment".[250] And later "My assessment is that Francis's behavior is problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment. Your role (WillBeback) appears to be that of unquestioningly supporting Francis".[251] These complaints are obviously not done to reduce edit warring for the benefit of Wikipedia, since FS outstrips everyone. It is done to harass me but no one helps me.

Will Beback

Will Beback has exhibited a strong anti-Rawat POV since his very first edit.[252] Since then he and Francis Schonken have broken consensus and POV edited on a massive scale while hounding me for every infraction. His own editing history rivals FS. But by far the most damaging behavior to the PR articles and Wikipedia is WB's constant dishonesty. Hardly a week goes past without him misrepresenting me in some form or another. So I need only go back one month to provide 5 examples of where he has fabricated evidence against me or made false claims about me.[253] So I say once again, read the diffs Will provides carefully, they seldom match what he says they prove.

Rejects consensus, ownership, tendentious editing

WB has provided numerous diffs of my editing to substantiate his claims that I reject consensus, edit tendentiously, edit war etc. Rather than provide you with a hundreds of diffs of WB rejecting consensus and tendentious editing, here are some examples where WB undid or made literally hundreds of edits against consensus.

Will Beback used his first ever PR edit, to revert the consensus version of the Prem Rawat article to an unapproved, undiscussed year old version of FS. WB deleted 12 months of collaborative editing despite clear opposition on the talk page.[254][255] He now claims he was "restoring a version from twenty minutes earlier" but neglects to inform that the version he was restoring was another version of FS's undiscussed, consensus breaking 30,000 byte edit.[256]

Since last year's RfA WB's problematic editing continued. In Sept 2008 he avoided collaboration and consensus by creating a new 71,000 byte article without the knowledge or involvement of other editors and two days later asks for a "peer review" when that is intended for articles "that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate".[257][258]

In October 2008, without discussion or consensus, WB added a new "Lifestyle" section of 5,000 bytes of contested material to the PRa.[259][260] And when removed, adds it back again and again.[261][262] Editor removes and repairs "Lifestyle" edit.[263] WB reverts claiming the reverts were "unintended". [264] Editor re-instates his edit.[265]

Without discussion or consensus, WB replaced the lead.[266][267][268]

In Nov 2008, WB reverted a month of edits without discussion.[269] But he is still happy to reverts other's material for "lack of discussion".[270][271][272]

Harassment by making misleading statements

Following the RfA WB begins his misinformation campaign against me, asking me three times if "Collier is the most reliable source available",[273][274][275] I say "No" three times.[276][277][278] He then misleads another editor by falsely claiming "Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available".[279]

The recent AEs produce a flurry of lies and double standards from WB, deliberately done to undermine my credibility and mislead arbitrators in order to produce a negative verdict. This is a far more serious issue than "sourcing" and "editing", If this were a court case, WB would be guilty of perjury.

Example 1: In AE1, WB claims my removal of links that broke our long standing consensus is an "edit war", when a week earlier WB removed the same links twice in 24 hours claiming "as per consensus" and saying "I will remove any links that don't have a consensus".[280][281][282][283]

Example 2: In AE1 WB claims I've "been blocked 4 times in the past year for edit warring on this same topic".[284] In fact, I was blocked twice, but the first one was unblocked after 8 hours to consider further evidence which resulted in the block being re-instated.

Example 3: In the AE2 WillBeBack tells two lies in two sentences. WillBeBack writes "Momento bears blame in this matter in that he instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it".[285] A check of the history shows that Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" and shows that WillBeBack and Cla68 were "edit warring" before I make my second edit.

Cla68 inserts undiscussed material [286]

Rumiton reverts [287]

Cla68 inserts an undiscussed and unsourced title "Lord of the Universe" into the lead [288]

I remove it [289]

WillBeBack reinserts the undiscussed and unsourced addition [290]

Rumiton removes it [291]

WillBeBack reinserts the undiscussed and unsourced addition.[292]

Pongostick removes it [293]

Surdas reinserts it [294]

I remove it [295]

FS files his complaint.[296]

Apart from the fact the WB makes two reverts before I do, he claims "Momento bears blame in that he instigated changes etc." [297] I provide the evidence but WB refuses to retract his claim but admits to Cla68 that "you started it" and suggests Cla68 be punished with "50 lashes with a wet noodle.[298][299] Never the less he repeats that I am to blame a week later.[300].

Example 4: WB claims in AE3 the "Prem Rawat article was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part".[301]

On the contrary, the first was caused when anti-Rawat editor Nik Wright2 started an edit war by adding 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, contested material and reinserting it when it was reverted. [302][303][304][305] The second followed edit warring by FS and Janice Rowe. [306] And the third followed Talk page consensus as the edit summary clearly states.[307][308] I was not the cause but WB continues to claim that I was responsible. [309]

Example 5: WB continues his campaign on this RfA's talk page. He claims "Momento has added other links, so his claim of enforcing the "one-link" consensus seems divorced from reality". [310] Divorced from reality? I asked for evidence in vain because I didn't add links, WB just made it up to undermine my credibility.[311]

Replies

Will Beback claims-

Tendentious editing and edit warring & Sourcing issues?

See Jayen's rebuttal.[312]

Refusing to acknowledge a consensus?

WB tries to prove his point by creating a misleading edit summary. He starts the "Balyogeshwar" sequence with my edit[313] but omits the FS "Balyogeshwar" edit that preceded mine.[314] Since there was no consensus for FS adding "Balyogeshwar" into the lead and objections on the talk page, I was correct to remove it every time he added it. See complete edit history here.[315]

As for making essentially the same proposal year after year, absolutely true. Because it accurately reflects all the sources.

• "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India,.... 2008
• "Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and Balyogeshwar in India, ...." 2009

Assuming bad faith and making uncivil comments?

Read the diffs carefully and what they refer to.

Over-reaching BLP claims?

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively...The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment". That is, the subject should be given the benefit of the doubt!

Ex-Premie-Org dispute?

Constantly objected to by numerous editors, on Feb 13 2008 the consensus was to eliminate it from PR links.[316] FS ignores consensus and edit wars over it. Any removal since then was to uphold unchallenged consensus.[317]

Single purpose editor with a conflict of interest and a strong POV?

SPA's provide Wiki with knowledge and energy for innumerable non-mainstream subjects. Wiki would be much poorer without them. Contrary to WB's assertion that I am compromised as an editor by COI and POV, when WB took a two week Wiki break (Jan 13-26)[318], rather than take advantage of his absence as his characterization would suggest, I did not edit any PR articles accept to remove vandalism.

Msalt

Like WB, Msalt makes claims he cannot support with the sole purpose of undermining my credibility.

Scholarly vs. press sources

Msalt claims I incorrectly deleted a statement about " Rawat's purchase of a house" -- cited to the LA Times -- by calling it "extremely poorly sourced" (even claiming exemption from 3RR under BLP) [319] Msalt misses the point, the edit was ""extremely poorly sourced" because according to LA Times and scholastic sources "in 1974, the Divine Light Mission purchased the four-acre $500,000 Anacapa View estate".

Msalt claims that I argue "that newspaper articles are prone to conjectural interpretation" and so must be removed under BLP. [320] and [321] Untrue, as the diff clearly shows I am talking about the editor's conjectural interpretation of the article, not the article/newspaper itself.

During this RfA Msalt claims "Momento has argued that no press should be used as sources at all, only scholarly journals, because they are better sources. He was refuted in RfCs and Noticeboard discussions".[322]. I have never made such a claim but when I ask for evidence, he refused. What I have said is that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available".[323]

Claims I "reject consensus" and gives three examples. One is private discussion on an editor's talk page has nothing to do with "rejecting consensus".[324] The other concerns the IfD[325] and the third "Balyogeshwar" (see above) when it was FS who rejected consensus, not me.

Msalt claims that in the last year, "Momento has -- without support -- removed Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5)". The 2007 edits are covered here.[326]The first three diffs relate to Jan 2009. In this case Cla68 has, according to Wiki guidelines, changed the tense of the opening sentence from the "past" to the "present". Therefore it is no longer correct to say Rawat is known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji or the Lord of the Universe. This diff [327] is part one of a two part move, here is the next edit [328]. These two edits and the summaries are correct.[329] [330] Attempts to note Rawat was known as "Balyogeshwar" in India are rebuffed. [331] [332] [333] [334].

Claims "Momento was heavily involved in the 3 Prem Rawat page protections.[335] See Example 4 above for irrefutable rebuttal.

Nik Wright2

Nik Wright2 has made less than a dozen edits to the PR article in a year. His undiscussed insertion and re-insertion of 12,000 bytes of contentious material triggered the first page protection in Feb 2008.[336] His next effort is to break a year old consensus to have only Rawat's personal link in the article.[337] He then makes an AE complaint about me when I remove it, vigorously supported by FS. NW2 is topic banned for a month.[338]

Conclusion

We are here because of two of many attacks on me by Francis Schonken. He edit wars, ignores consensus and pushes his anti-Rawat POV at will. But instead of resisting him Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2 ignore his behavior and join in. WB misrepresents me at every opportunity and Ms fabricates complaints like his "page protection" scenario. The most I have to answer for here is expressing my opinion on the talk page and other forums and occasional lapses caused by the unrelenting assault they have subjected me to. Their interest is not advancing Wikipedia, it is banning me.

Evidence presented by Nik Wright2

Personal Statement

Firstly it is relevant to state how my involvement with Wikipedia came about: it commenced with a web link being created from the Prem Rawat BLP, to a webpage which contained defamations about myself, and other named former followers of Prem Rawat. I have documented this at archive; my attitude is that it was Wikipedia that came to me, not the other way around, and that therefore my exercise of an SPA is warranted, so long as I abide by the rules.

Abiding conflicts over Policy

In respect of this case, while recognising that WP:AP requires that “The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes”, in the light of the failure of the previous Arbcom intervention, to provide lasting resolution I would ask the Committee to consider the following: There are five related articles, only one of which is a BLP,

• Prem Rawat

• Hans Rawat

• Divine Light Mission

• Elan Vital

• Teachings

yet the abiding disputes all in one form or another devolve to issues related to interpretations of BLP policy and to the applicability of content between the respective articles. While the behaviour of editors must be of concern, arbitrators might find some long term resolution through consideration of the problems of applying policy in the context of ‘all’ the Rawat articles, not just the BLP. Prem Rawat may indeed be a ‘living person’ but he is also an individual who derives personal benefit from being ‘marketed’ by those organisations which promote him as a ‘teacher’, there is thus an inherent conflict between Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool for a ‘consumable service’ (Prem Rawat’s Knowledge meditation and Rawat’s role as a teacher/speaker) and the need to treat Prem Rawat as a BLP subject within WP policy. At the very least arbitrators would assist understanding of their judgement by stating the salient applicable policies and guidelines and the interpretation and application of those, as the Committee collectively understands them. As an example of the guideline/policy uncertanties I would quote the circumstance in which I was topic banned, Enforcement, an assessment of which I have added to the talk page: example

Tendentious Editing by Rumiton

• Rumiton has shown consistent disregard for the requirements of CIVIL and GOODFAITH

[[339]] [[340]] [[341]] [[342]] [[343]] [[344]] [[345]] [[346]] [[347]] [[348]] [[349]] [[350]] [[351]] [[352]] [[353]] [[354]] [[355]] [[356]] [[357]] [[358]] [[359]] [[360]] [[361]] [[362]] [[363]] [[364]] [[365]] [[366]] [[367]] [[368]] [[369]] [[370]] [[371]] [[372]] [[373]] [[374]] [[375]] [[376]] [[377]] [[378]] [[379]] [[380]] [[381]] [[382]] [[383]] [[384]] [[385]] [[386]] [[387]] [[388]] [[389]] [[390]] [[391]] [[392]] [[393]] [[394]] [[395]]

• Rumiton has consistently pushed POV

[[396]] [[397]] [[398]] [[399]] [[400]] [[401]] [[402]] [[403]] [[404]] [[405]] [[406]] [[407]] [[408]] [[409]] [[410]] [[411]] [[412]] [[413]]

• Rumiton has engaged in BATTLE in an attempt to stop the use of sources not compliant with his POV

[[414]] [[415]] [[416]] [[417]] [[418]] [[419]] [[420]] [[421]] [[422]] [[423]] [[424]] [[425]] [[426]] [[427]] [[428]] [[429]] [[430]] [[431]] [[432]] [[433]] [[434]] [[435]] [[436]]

Replies to Comments on this Evidence Page

@ Jayen

Jayen states: "To be sure, I wouldn't give the Rawat article to Momento to write by himself. But neither would I give it to Francis, or Will, or Nik Wright to write by themselves, jointly or severally"

This statement summarises Jayen466’s ambiguous position in this arbitration, clearly Jayen466 is not willing to accord GOODFAITHto the named editors, but then Jayen466 does not offer any evidence why GOODFAITH should be withheld, except for the obscure reference to a ‘representative dispute’ where one editor’s contribution is supposed have come off “like an attack piece”. In the light of Jayen466’s statement of intent to withhold GOODFAITH – which must of course require that any editor is to be trusted to “write by themselves”, the Committee is bound to consider whether Jayen466 should be subject to sanctions. The Committee might further consider whether the expressed attitude has not contributed to the multiple difficulties experienced by the many editors of the Rawat related articles.

@ Momento

Momento claims “[I] have frequently denied having an anti-Rawat bias but ... have frequently rejected consensus” – I have never denied any bias, as will be clear from my statement commencing this evidence. If Momento has evidence that I have rejected consensus he should present the diffs. My arguments on talk pages have been almost exclusively concerned with the structure of the Rawat articles and the use of academic sources, my argument being that more sources were required.

Momento states “Nik Wright2 re-appeared on Feb 26 and started an edit war by adding 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, contested material and reinserting it when it was reverted. [157][158][159] Nandesuka protected the article until March 4.[160]" this provides a useful contrast with Momento’s own activities. The Prem Rawat article as it stood prior to the wider attention produced by exposure in The Register, was substantially that written by Jossi, Momento and Rumiton who had worked on a draft [[437]] where the contributions of other editors was strongly resisted [[438]] [[439]] [[440]] [[441]]. The block draft was inserted into the main article in May 2007 [[442]] and the problem then arose that any alteration to the imposed structure would require similar block changes. I placed a link to the changes I proposed to make on the article talk page [[443]] which were based on the need for additional sources as I had presented at: [[444]] two editors offered limited support for what I proposed and Momento, Rumiton and Jossi opposed outright without substantive explanation. I made the changes and Janice Rowe reverted without comment, it seemed reasonable that other editors should have the option to assess the value of the changes and offer a critique more constructive than simply restoring the status quo of the Momento, Rumiton, Jossi structure, I therefore restored the new version, Janice Rowe then made two POV driven edits and the page was protected. The first Arbitration then followed, which failed to address the underlying problems of editor behaviour and the progress made in the Steve Crossin managed mediation which followed the arbitration has since been under attack by amongst others Momento and Rumiton.

Responses to points made by other editors on the RfA page

@ Will Beback

• The claim that “This dispute predates Wikipedia”. – is a gross overstatement, even if “predates appearance of Wikipedia article” article creation is taken to be the meaning, the nature of any disputation between current and former followers of Prem Rawat has only a marginal relevance to the arguments over WP content.
• The claim that “There are two opposing camps: the current members and the former members. They have profound and irreconcilable differences in their views of the topic.” is a false presentation and opens up an ‘accusation by class’. Of those editors who have openly declared themselves, or who have been identified by others (three former followers were identified as such on a webpage linked to from the Prem Rawat article, prior to any of us contributing to WP ! ) few have have contributed significant amounts of copy or offered material otherwise rejected for inclusion. In large measure the contributions of current followers and former followers have been on the talk pages where the pervading problem has been the inability to achieve consensus, something which all editors, aligned and unaligned have to take responsibility for.
• The claim that: “The "anti-" editors have problems of a different kind. They mostly seem to have little understanding or patience for Wikipedia and their involvement has been often marked poor behaviors. They've insulted both the subject and the "pro-" editors, have engaged in edit wars, have inserted inappropriate links, have been blocked repeatedly, and have shaken their fists at the system in frustration. As a whole, they haven't been productive or NPOV editors.” is a further charactisation that advances the process of ‘accusation by class’, implying that there is a collective approach by those who see Prem Rawat in a negative light. Only two editors who have been identified as former followers have been given multiple blocks and the claims seem more to do with an attempt at ‘guilt by association’ than any real assessment of behaviour.
• The claim that: “ Jayen466 and I are essentially in the middle. I believe we're both trying to bring the topic towards a more neutral middle ground but it's mostly been an unproductive activity.” is a false assertion of ‘exceptional’ neutrality, both Will Beback and “ Jayen466 have taken ‘positions’ over content which appear to reflect POVs and their respective behaviours should be as much subject to examination as any other involved editor.

@ Sandstein

• Sandstein’s characterisation of the problem as merely that of warring sides is facile. The difficulties are numerous and relate in part to the inconclusive nature of the previous Arbcom judgement. Of course Sandstein’s prescrition of identifying editors as lacking social skills and banning them would certainly have the effect of removing the present participants – although it will do nothing to inhibit opposing groups (if such exist) from encouraging new players to enter the fray.

@ Cla68

• Cla68 joins in with the mythology of the ‘two groups of editors’ who are POV pushing. This picture is illustrated with statements about Jossi which can not now be tested because he is an absent editor. Cla68 also claims that “I'm aware that the anti-Rawat editors have been trying to introduce unreliably-sourced information into the articles”. This claim requires firstly a definition of how an editor is to be judged “anti Rawat” without suspending WP:GF, and then secondly that an indentification of unreliably-sourced information be given – none was provided by Cla68 although I think he may refer to the WP:EL issue which has nothing to do with reliability.
• The assertion (on the impoverished basis of a Google search) that “there really isn't anything out there that wasn't already presented in the Rawat articles” – fundamentally fails to understand the current inadequacies, not merely in the Prem Rawat article but the intimately linked articles on *Hans Rawat , *Divine Light Mission *Elan Vital *Teachings on which there have been long standing and still unadressed proposals to merge one or more of these articles, while the balance used in the WP articles of material published by scholars listed at [445] is a matter still requiring considerable work.
• Cla68 singles out three editors, Francis Schonken, Momento, and Rumiton, yet he neglects to identify that one of those editors, Francis Schonken, has provided a considerable volume of text in the existing articles, which is specifically relevant to the sociological nature of the bulk of the available sources multiple constructive edits. Difficult behaviour may not be tolerable – but difficult behaviour from an editor who writes intelligent copy is hardly the same thing as the obstructive behaviour of an editor who merely uses the talk page as an arena to hold back intelligent consensus without providing any compentent text.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rumiton

I think Will Beback’s assessment of the editorial terrain is flawed. There are no “groups” here, there are highly individual editors with their own stance on the subject. Indeed, to me, one of the biggest problems we have faced is a relentless attempt by Will Beback himself to make the article reflect his own views, while claiming neutrality.

It is almost impossible to make this discussion behaviour-based without explaining some of the editorial background. As the article explains, Prem Rawat was a child guru in India, who came to the west without parental approval when he was still an adolescent. He represented the Guru-shishya tradition which was revered in his own culture, and knowing (perhaps not caring) that Westerners knew nothing of the background, the British and American tabloid press mostly greeted the situation with delight, heaping scorn and derision on the subject. Ignoring this, Prem Rawat has continued into his adult life as a speaker on the subject of inner peace, and still spends most of the year travelling and propagating the techniques he teaches. Will Beback has, from his first involvement, tried to lower the tone of this article, to make it parrot the views and tone of the tabloid press, while more intelligent sources were readily available. A few examples:

[[446]][[447]] [[448]]

This would be acceptable if it concerned an ordinary editor, we all have our points of view, but Will Beback is an admin who consciously speaks as the Voice of Wikipedia. He has a habit of raining down judgements on the rest of us like Moses while still claiming neutrality.

On 20 Jan 09, an editor inserted a link to a highly derogatory website, [[449]] for which he was later given a one month suspension. Did Will Beback as an administrator protest at this radical violation of BLP principles? No, didn’t seem to. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MSalt's assertions below are typical of a kind of behaviour that has plagued this article: an editor pretending neutrality and claiming a superior connection to, or understanding of, Wikipedia. He alleges that I am, "in particular" guilty of edit warring, and apparently assumes he won't be challenged. Well, I am challenging. Prove your allegation true or withdraw it and apologise. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, if MSalt has evidence that Momento has engaged in sockpuppetry [[450]] he should present it. Otherwise he should withdraw his allegation. Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through this section now, has anyone read the advice on top of this page re brevity? There is no way I have the time to even properly read all this stuff at the end of a working day, let alone reply in detail to it, and this gives an unfair advantage to people with a great deal of time on their hands. I hope arbitrators will take this into account. To cover a couple of Will Beback's points about me: I did not "add" the word philanthropist to the lead, I re-added it after someone else deleted it. There is a big difference. And the "good advice" I gave to an editor in 2007 was in connection with an article he wrote single-handedly on the Discount Tire Company. That article was pure advertising for an (apparently) billion-dollar corporation. The Prem Rawat article started as a savage personal attack, and some people would have liked it to stay that way. Your other diffs I will leave to arbitrators to examine if they have time. In context I am confident they will see them as non-problematic. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I do apologise to Will Beback for not knowing he was on a break when the derogatory link was inserted, and I agree that he has removed other links on both sides of the fence in defense of our single-link agreement. Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Msalt

While factions clearly exist, the real problem is a small number of edit warriors, in particular [Rumiton] and [Momento] (devotees of Prem Rawat), and [Francis Schonken] (ex-devotee of a different religious leader). I'll focus on the worst, Momento.

Momento rejects consensus

1) "There aren't two sides to the truth. It's either true or it isn't. So a compromise isn't a compromise, it's a failure." [451]

2) Repeatedly deleted an image during its IfD [452] against consensus [453] [454] [455] [456] even after a neutral editor's warning [457].

3) Momento still fights having Prem Rawat’s alternate name Balyogeshwar (a redirect to [Prem Rawat]) in the lede even after RfC [458] and after WillBeBack worked out a compromise ok with every other editor, including Momento’s allies Jayen466 [459] and Rumiton [460]. Momento: “consensus doesn't eliminate the need for truth”, [461] RfC was "dishonestly framed." [462] [463].

Outside reviewer [Abcedare]: "I really don't see why this issue is at all controversial. ... "Balyogeshwar" is a term of respect, and not an insult of any form." [464] Momento admits "I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source." [465]

It's pure POV; supporting the strategy of Rawat's DLM church (and its successor, Elan Vital) to minimize Indian and religious trappings. [466] Momento's reply to Abcedare: "Rawat dropped the title "Guru" and all Hindu aspects of his teachings in the early 80s in order to remove any cultural barriers to his message. ... The lead should reflect the article and Rawat moving away from Indian traditions is a major part of his story."[467].

In the last year, Momento has -- without support -- removed Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5), [468] [469] [470] [471] [472] [473] and added softening language another four: [474] [475] [476] [477].

Momento's disrespectful and sarcastic replies to warnings, blocks and refused unblocks from admins

To Sandstein [478]

to Shell_Kinney [479]

to PhilKnight & Shell_Kinney ("What a disgrace!") [480]

to Durova (edit summary: "do your job") [481]

to Vassyana [482]

to Vassyana [483]

to Lawrence [484]

to B [485]

to Will Beback [486]

On Noticeboards, he's described WillBeback's statements as lying [487], "relentless ... harassment" [488][489], and "falsifying the editing" [490].

Momento's "editing while blocked"

Momento openly bragged about how “hilarious” it was that he's "editing while blocked” (his section heading) [491] soon after 12 article edits by “Janice Rowe” in 45 minutes. Janice Rowe hadn’t edited in over 2 years, and hasn’t again since March 2008. [492] [493]

Earlier, Momento was blocked for sockpuppetry by BetaCommand, who lifted the block despite strong evidence solely because Momento’s ally Jossi (a respected admin who has since resigned from Wikipedia under a cloud) vouched for him. [494]

Momento was heavily involved in the 3 Prem Rawat page protections

Momento charges WillBeBack with harassment by false accusation: [495] (Also: [496] [497] [498])

“WillBeBack writes ‘It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts 
of which Momento was a part’. And note that I was not involved in two of them and had a very minor part 
in one. So that's a lie isn't it.” 

WillBeBack assumed good faith and apologized if he had gotten his facts wrong [499] [500], but he needn’t have. Momento's aggressive defense is inaccurate and misleading. He chose precise time periods that excluded his edits, to make his point, but was deeply involved in the edit warring. Specifically:

First Protection: 15:33, 26 February 2008 [501]

Momento: “Before the first protection from 26 Feb to 4 March there were 34 edits in the previous two days - 12 by FrancisSchonken, 4 by Jayen, 3 each by Momento, Janice Rowe, NikWright2, Andries and 2 by WillBeBack and Cirt.” [502]

Momento was blocked on 2/9/2008 (for disruption on Prem Rawat) and 2/14/2008 (for edit warring on the page). [503] He made 3 edits the day of the first protection: reverting new, reliably sourced information about Rawat’s house [504] and making two unilateral, highly POV edits in the four hours before protection.[505] [506]

In the days leading up to this first page protection, Momento edit warred over the page’s POV tag [507] [508], over a picture of Rawat’s house (despite ongoing IfD) [509], over an external link to a critical website [510] [511] [512], and over “Balyogeshwar.”[513] [514] [515] [516]

Second Protection: 18:28, March 16, 2008 [517]

The second protection lasted during the first Prem Rawat arbitration case. Even Momento's ally Jossi stated in an AE proceeding that Momento's edit-warring (along with Francis') was the main cause:

"... the article was protected due to edit-warring in which User:Momento (the user about which this 
AE posting was made) and User:Francis Schonken (the filer of this AE posting) and others were 
protagonists." [518]

Momento: "Before the second protection there were 21 edits the previous day... I took no part." [519]

Momento edited 9 times on the previous day (March 15th) between 21:50 and 23:20, all POV pushing except the last one here: [520] [521] [522] [523] [524] [525] [526] [527] [528]. He may have meant to say that he didn’t edit the same day as the protection – which is technically true since he stopped at 23:20 the night before, but very misleading.

Third protection: 14:58, 27 May 2008 [529]

Momento: “Before the third protection 27 May to 10 June there were 12 edits in the two previous days - 3 by WillBeBack, 3 by Mukadderat, 2 by Rumiton and Anons and 1 each for MaelNum and Jossi, I took no part.” [530]

Momento was blocked for edit warring on May 18th and again on May 26th, the day before the third protection. [531] It’s technically true that he didn’t edit in the 48 hours before protection – but he was blocked for edit warring half of that time. Momento still made 7 of the last 32 edits before the block. [532] The first, [533] removing the subheading "criticism," started the biggest edit war before protection. [534] [535] [536] [537] [538] [539] [540]

5 of Momento’s 7 edits were contentious. EG, to the article's text "Critical former followers became known as 'ex-premies'," Momento added "and some have undertaken illegal activities against Rawat and his followers" with a highly disputed source. [541]

Note: These protections were last year, but Momento was warned for edit-warring and modifying others' comments as recently as January 24, 2009. [542]

Summary

It's interesting that none of these 3 editors appear to have any perception that there is a problem on these pages, aside from the charge that WillBeBack and I are harassing them for no good reason. There are numerous warnings and blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing (mostly to these 3 editors), 3 page protections, 2 ArbCom cases, and 40 archives of heated discussion on a subject that doesn't change much or have a broad scope. And the cause of it all is WillBeBack harassing Momento? Msalt (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova

(moved to the Talk page per MBisanz)

Response to Rumiton

1. "Pretending neutrality and claiming a superior connection to or understanding of Wikipedia"

He charges me with "pretending neutrality," a clear violation of WP:AGF since he knows nothing about me. For the record, I'm not a current or former devotee of Prem Rawat or any other religious figure, nor do I know anyone who is. I have no strong feelings about Rawat, and I don't think I'd even heard of him before February 2008 when I started editing this page. Nor do I claim "a superior connection to, or understanding of, Wikipedia" -- I know I'm probably the greenest editor here. But I assume that all editors, old and new, are entitled to join in the frequent policy debates here. Msalt (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Demand for evidence of edit warring

Rumiton also demands evidence that he edit-warred. I'm working on it, but in the meantime, 2 quick examples:
1) Example from first arbitration case [543]
2) Momento's evidence on this page lists an edit war that starts with 2 Rumiton reverts and 1 by Momento, and is continued by others (Pongostick and Anon). [544]

The edit warring on this page is rarely one-on-one; several acknowledged devotees of Rawat often take turns reverting the controversial edit. Momento and Rumiton are usually among them, along with more occasional editors such as Pedrero and Pongostick (lately), Janice Rowe, Louise Po, Rainer P., Balius, Armeisen and some IP addresses. This does not change the fact of edit warring. Worth noting is that the ex-devotees of Rawat, while fierce in talk page opposition, rarely edit the article. (Nik Wright2 is the only exception that comes to mind, though there are several IP editors that might well be ex-devotees.)

Usually a more neutral editor makes the edit, and faces repeated reversion by Momento, Rumiton etc. even during dispute resolution. This is part of what makes editing these pages so frustrating. Msalt (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Momento

Scope

Momento seems to be trying to bring content disagreements into this Arbitration by arguing that those he disagrees with are lying, which is both incivil and missing the point of Arbitration.

Personal attacks

Momento has frequently made personal attacks in Talk page discussions and even in edit summaries[545]. Now he is making very charged attacks in this proceeding such as "fraudulent complaints to advance their anti-Rawat POV" [546] and "perjury." [547] Sometimes he tones down his charges later, sometimes not. For example, he charged WillBeBack and I with lying in a deliberate attempt to mislead editors and deceive the Arbcom [548], though he later trimmed it to just an accusation of deliberately lying to mislead editors and harass him [549] which of course is still outrageous.

This is a perfect illustration of Momento's continued inability to edit this page civilly. He seems unable to understand that people may disagree with his editing choices without being deceitful, or bad people, or hating Prem Rawat.

Scholarly vs. press sources dispute

Note that Momento doesn't deny saying we should use scholarly sources in this article instead of the press, he just demands a diff. (See this long diff [550] under Msalt section, "Where's the diff?") The original discussion was a year ago amidst 40 archives of Talk page discussions, and I can't find all the references, but here are a few. Momento justified his repeated deletion of a statement about Rawat's purchase of a house -- cited to the LA Times -- by calling it "extremely poorly sourced" (even claiming exemption from 3RR under BLP):

"Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar. 
And certainly contentious. And irrelevant. This is why there is a BLP policy, to stop 
editors writing Biographies of Living Persons using the property and social pages of 
a newspaper." [551]   See also [552].

Many of his comments on the subject are in the long thread about using the LA Times and New York Times as sources [553], in which Momento typically continues fighting these sources AFTER a Reliable Sources Noticeboard proceeding [554] yielded a strong and specific consensus against him. Examples:
1) "I'm becoming concerned that the push for using newspapers as sources is going to end in a "dumbing down" of the article. ... This article used to rely on peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists..." [555]
2) He also argues that newspaper articles are prone to conjectural interpretation and so must be removed (as he did) under BLP. [556] and [557]

WillBeBack has added several more examples in his evidence.

It's worth noting that Momento didn't just say scholarly sources are better, he repeatedly deleted the press-sourced material and made these arguments (among others) to justify his edits, often after the fact. [558][559][560]

"This private discussion on an editor's talk page has nothing to do with "rejecting consensus".

As far as I understand, editor's talk pages are public spaces. The discussion is instructive; Momento is talking with an independent (opposing) editor, Mael-Num, who is trying to reach a compromise on the Prem Rawat page. Mael-Num says "Be that as it may, there's got to be some sort of middle ground, because I don't think this issue is going to just go away. You asked me to be more moderate, so here I am asking how I can do that. As I see it, Andries is on one side, and Momento and yourself are on the other. The best possible article is somewhere in between. Compromise seems sound, and that starts with communication." [561]

In response to that, Momento says: "There aren't two sides to the truth. It's either true or it isn't. So a compromise isn't a compromise, it's a failure."[562] So he is precisely rejecting consensus and compromise in editing the Prem Rawat pages. Msalt (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Msalt: Where's the diff?"//"When I asked for evidence, he refused."

This is so confusing. On this evidence page, Momento demanded a diff [563] for my statement (on the Workshop page) that he insisted on scholarly vs. media sources, though he didn't deny insisting. I responded at length above in #3, Scholarly vs. Press Sources. [564] but his demand for evidence remains. Msalt (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009

Update: Momento now directly denies having disparaged (or removed) press sources, but inexplicably, he claims on this evidence page that I still haven't responded to his demand for a diff. "I have never made such a claim but when I ask for evidence, he [msalt] refuses. " [565] Msalt (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2009

Update 2: Just 40 minutes after my first (previous) update, Momento deleted -- without comment or striking -- his charge that I haven't responded, as well as his denial of favoring scholarly vs. media sources.[566] I appreciate that. He left this statement however: "Like WB, Msalt makes claims he cannot support with the sole purpose of undermining my credibility." I think Momento's unacknowledged retraction is the best refutation of this charge. His failure to assume good faith remains, though. Msalt (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Update 3: Whoops, the charge is back now, in a different section ("Scholarly vs. Press Sources"): "When I asked [Msalt] for evidence, he refused." [567] Of course I did not refuse. Ironically, this charge is now part of Momento's response to the very section where I provided the evidence, in direct reply to his request. Perhaps I am just not understanding his point here. I prefer not to think this is just some cat-and-mouse WP:GAME he is playing. Msalt (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"History" (Msalt's edits)

Momento writes: "Msalt arrived on Feb 17. His second ever PRa edit was to revert my removal of unsourced material.[568] and he began removing sourced material that didn't suit his POV. [569][570][571][572][573] ... So there we have it. The first two weeks of torrent of tendentious editing, edit wars, anti-Rawat POV pushing and unqualified support for Francis Schonken by Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2." (First posted here and slightly reworded several times since).

Of course, the problems on Prem Rawat did not begin in February 2008. I challenge Momento to say what my alleged POV regarding Prem Rawat is -- I sure don't know. (My "for the record" statement of POV is here.) Momento implies that I was editing contentiously, but still has not provided any evidence that I have edit-warred (and I don't believe I have.)

Specifically on his points: - "His second ever PRa edit was to revert my removal of unsourced material". Momento's edit mainly involved removing the key context of a sourced statement. The "facted" first sentence was unimportant. Specifically, the original read

" Eileen Barker wrote that such changes can be generalized for conversion to other new religious movements. 
In a study by Marc Galanter published in 1989 about the healing effects of spiritual 
affiliation, he found that social and spiritual recovery occurred naturally in certain groups. In the study, 
Galanter presents as an example the fact that adherents experienced a reduction of symptoms of psychological 
distress after they joined the group."

Momento changed this to read

"Marc Galanter in a study published in 1989, found that adherents experienced 
a reduction of symptoms of psychological distress after they joined the group."  

He removed key context from the sourced quote to make Rawat's group seem uniquely positive in its effects, which is not at all what the source actually said. This was part of a more general consensus on the Talk page to remove claims of benefits to followers of Prem Rawat. [574]

- The 5 edits he then cites were biased, pro-Rawat statements that I removed for being POV and unencyclopedic. At least two were unsourced.

1) This was an unsourced claim about Rawat speaking to 86,000 people via satellite. [575] I discussed this on the Talk page before editing [576], no one objected, and I discussed it again afterwards [577].

2) A clearly POV statement,[578] based on a source but violating [WP:SYN].

3) I removed a reference citing the controversial Cagan pro-Rawat biography,[579] per my earlier compromise proposal on talk to use it only for non-controversial points. [580] [581] I can't find the exact diff offhand, but that proposal became the consensus of editors on the page, including as I recall Rumiton. [582] Add: Rumiton confirms. [583]

4) I removed a paragraph about Rawat flying his own plane around the world to many cities,[584] as tangential and POV, after discussing it on the Talk page before [585] and after [586][587]. This is the same paragraph that Cagan was used to document (in the previous point, #3).

5) I removed several claims copied from Rawat's resume [588], e.g. that he had skills in computer graphics and aviation software, because they weren't notable or typical of BLPs. I can't remember or find any controversy over this edit, which was part of my previously announced (on Talk) effort to remove non-encyclopedic detail.

In summary: each of my 6 edits that Momento criticizes in the History section were NPOV and discussed on the Talk page either in general or specifically. There were part of a much needed effort to remove hagiographic detail from the Prem Rawat article. For example, when I began editing, there were several references to Rawat flying his airplane; I worked with other editors to cut them to one. Msalt (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The house image

Momento writes, in the History section: "The house image was objected to by several editors and an IfD started. ...Despite the objections, the IfD, the Jepday's removal, it was inserted 3 times by FS. And once by Msalt."

This misrepresents the situation. The dispute was about process, not the ultimate decision; in fact, both WillBeBack [589] and I [590] supported deletion in the IfD. The question was whether Momento was justified in edit-warring to repeatedly delete it before the IfD was concluded.

Yes, Jeepday removed it, but other neutral admins -- such as Nil Einne, who also supported deletion in the IfD [591] -- argued for keeping it pending the IfD [592][593] and Frances carried the day by pointing out that deleting the image would also delete the IfD tag before the IfD was over, which makes no sense.[594]

Even Momento gave up deleting it and said he was going to simply move it to a different section [595]; his ally Jossi warned him not to even move it until the IfD was concluded. [596] In the midst of all this, Nandesuka removed it again, and I reverted in good faith exasperation with this edit summary: "Undid revision 193052651 by Nandesuka (talk) STOP reverting. IfD still open. There is a process -- follow it." [597] To my embarrasment, Nandesuka reverted me with the edit summary "In fact, the IfD is closed. I know, because I closed it." [598] Chagrined, I informed people on the Talk page and apologized there [599] as well as on my Talk page. [600]

Nonetheless, the point is that Momento kept edit-warring without respecting the ongoing IfD. It's also notable that his justification for deleting changed with basically every deletion,[601] which is a pattern for him. The reason doesn't matter; he knows what he wants to do and will find keep changing the reasons as necessary to justify it. Msalt (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jayen466

"Much of the evidence presented by Msalt on Momento is quite old, predating last year's arbitration case" [602]

Momento's editing behavior is part of a long and continuing pattern of disruption. Since the conclusion of the previous Arbcom case, he has been blocked 3 times twice for actions on Prem Rawat pages for disruption and edit-warring, as recently as January 25th, 2009 May 26, 2008. [603] [604] Since the first Arbcom case ended, he has also received 5 warnings (as recently as January 23, 2009) [605] [606] [607] [608] [609] and 6 more gentle cautions about his behavior. [610] [611] [612] [613] [614] including one from his ally Jossi. [615]

Just as important is his attitude. As I have noted, he has used personal attacks and incivility even in this new Arbitration. More generally, he continues to maintain that he has done nothing wrong despite all his blocks and warnings. When editors present clear, documented evidence of his inappropriate editing in DR, he calls it "harassment" and "deliberate" attempts to "deceive the Arbcom" and "mislead editors." When neutral admins warn or block him, he complains, argues and is disrespectful to them as well. All of this makes it very clear that Momento feels he is right and supported by policy, has no intention of changing his behavior or attitude, and will continue in this behavior until forced to stop. Msalt (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Momento: Two Blocks or Three?

I stand corrected on Momento's blocks; I must have misread my notes. Momento has only 2 blocks for edit warring and 11 warnings in the 10 months since the last arbitration. Yet picking at the details misses the bigger point; Momento's continuing problematic behavior and intransigent attitude. I don't have time to compile the precise statistic, but I think it's safe to say that Momento's total of warnings and blocks during this time period is equal to or greater than every other editor on the page combined.

Jayen asks, "Is it surprising if Momento feels that editors are misrepresenting the facts in their accusations of him?" Yes, it is. Seeing every honest mistake as an attempt at deception is failure to assume good faith. It's exactly what is wrong with the Prem Rawat pages in general and with Momento's editing in particular. Msalt (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Removes sourced material, claiming WP:REDFLAG"

WillBeBack has responded to this point (about Momento deleting sourced material re: the Millenium '73 event) in a section on the Talk page for this article, presumably to keep this page from getting too long, and I have added my response there. Note that Will also put his response on Jayen's point about whether Rawat's wife had been his secretary in a different section there. Msalt (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jayen466

Representative dispute

• As a representiative dispute I would offer User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7, which was kicked off by this proposed addition to the article, which combines statements from various sources for dramatic effect and to me came off like an attack piece. Lengthy, but mostly amicable and productive discussions and over a dozen amended proposals ensued.
• Generally I find it worth noting that although editors have often had diametrically opposed views on which direction to take the article, discussions have on the whole been civil and marked by less overt ill temper and aggression than many other article talk pages in this project. I would say that redounds to the credit of all the editors involved here. Jayen466 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the evidence presented by Msalt

Much of the evidence presented by Msalt on Momento is quite old, predating last year's arbitration case (in which I remember I found some of the evidence brought against Momento less than convincing).

In this arbitration, we should focus on events that have transpired since the last case. A big part of this was the long dispute around how and whether to include the title "Balyogeshwar" in the lede.

While that dispute was very trying for all concerned, I wouldn't single out Momento for blame here. A number of editors made edits that presented this title as though it were in present-day use (i.e. not restricted to historical uses in literature). According to this scholarly publication which is considered among the best and most authoritative in the field, as well as the semi-authorised Cagan biography of Rawat (which unlike some other editors who object to the promotional nature of the book I would consider a reliable source on Rawat's present-day honorifics), Prem Rawat simply calls himself Maharaji today and has shed his other titles. A general Wikipedia principle is that we present people under the names that they self-identify with. For some reason, a number of editors were very reluctant to do so in the lede of Rawat's article.

At any rate, this revert by Francis Schonken did not help things at all, nor did this one in which Francis deleted the source I just linked to (based on the argument that the birthdate given in it appears to be wrong). Momento's following edit was actually in line with the source Francis deleted.

So in my view, the behaviour of a number of editors contributed to the impasse, as was acknowledged in the related AE thread. Nor did it help that Momento was three times dragged to AE in the course of a few days, where the first time resulted in Momento's accuser being blocked for a month, and where by the third time administrators considered blocking Francis for abusing AE. Neither of these trips to AE resulted in sanctions for Momento (although they brought us here), but naturally the situation created tensions that made it harder for everyone to cooperate in good faith.

To make this clear, I would not like to attribute any blame here to any individual editor. We are human beings, and this was simply the failure of a group to communicate effectively. Jayen466 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejoinder to Msalt

Msalt says about Momento that "Since the conclusion of the previous Arbcom case, he has been blocked 3 times for actions on Prem Rawat pages for disruption and edit-wwarring, as recently as January 25th, 2009, citing the following three links: [616] [617] [618]

Now, the first two of these related to the same incident. Momento was blocked at first, then the blocking admin unblocked him with the following comments:

I've unblocked you. I strongly suggest some sort of WP:DR, such as mediation, on this and related issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

* I've relisted this AE case so more evidence and input can be obtained. There's obviously more going on here than meets the eye. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The case was then relisted at AE, and both Momento and Francis were blocked a week later for 72 and 48 hours respectively. Now as for the third alleged blocking of Momento in January, there is nothing in Momento's block log to indicate he was blocked then, nor is there anything in the previous arbcom's sanctions log: [619] In fact, this was the incident where Nik Wright, who started the AE thread against Momento, was blocked for a month, while Momento was warned. So on closer inspection, the alleged three blocks since the last arbcom actually boil down to one, which took place nearly a year ago. Is it surprising if Momento feels that editors are misrepresenting the facts in their accusations of him? Jayen466 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The alleged "warnings" likewise appear to boil down to very little upon inspection:

• [620] seems like a spurious complaint by user:Francis Schonken – according to this principle, Momento would appear to have been the only one with grounds for a complaint
• [621] was a justified copyright infringement warning by user:Cirt – what Momento inserted was recognizably similar to the source text – but insufficient source text reformulation is not what this case is about
• [622] was the precursor to Momento's May 2008 block, not a separate incident
• [623] this relates to the removal of the link for the inclusion of which user:Nik_Wright2 was topic-banned for a month, Momento's action being in line, mutatis mutandis, with [624]
• [625] again relates to the removal of the same external link; the link provided by Msalt here is the same one as the one supposedly documenting Momento's third block in the preceding sentence of Msalt's evidence. I'll leave it there, the "cautions" are not much different.

It is clear that Momento is a source of annoyance to some of the other editors here. However, I am far from convinced that the reasons for that are solely or even primarily to do with Momento not abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines – in some cases, it seems to me Momento has been the only one to uphold them. I think the reasons for this response to Momento's presence are a little more complicated and bear closer scrutiny. To be sure, I wouldn't give the Rawat article to Momento to write by himself. But neither would I give it to Francis, or Will, or Nik Wright to write by themselves, jointly or severally. Jayen466 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will

I think the way the topic of Rawat's wealth is covered in the article today is far superior to what we had in late June 2008, but it is incorrect to say that the article at the time hardly raised the issue. I count more than half a dozen references to it in the 30 June 2008 version, including a strong one in the lede. That was the version in place when the proposal was kicked off. I don't deny that there have been piques and accusations of bad faith – from both sides, mind you. Yet I have seen plenty of talk page interactions a lot less civil than ours in the Rawat pages. And I appreciate that it feels different from your perspective, given how often you and Momento have clashed over content. Jayen466 12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Will's evidence

I will say that this sort of analysis is very time-consuming; an allegation is quickly made, but looking into it and refuting it, where appropriate, takes ten times as long. The following uses Will's headings as above.

Tendentious editing

• The two blocks in May 2008 refer to a single incident. Momento was blocked by Relevse, then unblocked when Relevse had second thoughts, and then reblocked together with Francis.
• The 1 RR thread which Will mentions next is in fact what triggered the first arbcom case (March 2008). We shouldn't try the same editor twice for the same alleged offence. (Also note that Momento was accused by Francis of being dishonest and a liar in the linked thread. If I started to make a collection of incidents where someone failed to AGF in their dealings with Momento, it would be a long list.)
• [626] This removal of the former title "Balyogeshwar" by Momento was subjected to an exceptional degree of scrutiny here and it was generally agreed that this situation involved several editors' actions. Editors have also agreed since then that it is appropriate to state that Balyogeshwar is a title that Rawat was formerly known by.
• "Keeps removing material that has been discussed at length, and for which sources are well-known.[627]": Incorrect. Sources cited in the article today say the DLM purchased the house as its new headquarters. Rawat did and does have an apartment in the building, but he was not the buyer.
• "He adds text and then complains about it": Momento did not complain about the "bizarre" wording, which was present before he changed it slightly and was present in the article from the very beginning. Momento complained about the omission of any reference to premies jokingly reserving parking space for the martians ("If you see any extraterrestrials, just give them some of our literature!" said Rawat's brother, one of the prime organisers of the event). Momento was concerned that something which according to many reliable sources was a light-hearted and exuberant joke to participants in the event (these were the seventies, man), was being presented as some weird, po-faced belief that ETs would park their UFO in the parking lot. So Momento had a point, and incidentally this kind of misrepresentation that Momento complained about to Will here is not uncommon in media coverage designed to make religious minorities look weird. History is replete with precedents. At any rate, Will is not "getting" or presenting above what Momento was on about.
• "In one edit he adds more material, strongly insisting it's necessary for NPOV. Another edit, he removes the same material as incompatible with NPOV.": What Momento removed was clearly not the same as what he inserted.

What he have here are not so much calculated misrepresentations as the visible results of irritation and frustration leading to errors in perception. This is human, and no one needs to be hit over the head for it: not Will, not Momento, not Msalt. But it does need to be pointed out. Jayen466 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuing:

Sourcing issues

• "The source is reality.[628]" – A frustrated talk page comment from an editor who is asked to provide a source for what he has just stated from memory. Hands up who has never experienced that.

"Claims that NY Times is not a reliable source:"

• [629] - Does not refer to NY Times at all as far as I can see. And predates first arbcom (from March 2008).
• [630] - Momento is pointing out an obvious contradiction between sources – why is that improper? (From May 2008, two days after the first arbcom concluded.)
• [631] - Discusses different priorities of scholars and mass media; not an inappropriate discussion in an encyclopedic context. From July 2008.
• [632][633]. Polemical, yes, but grounds for topic-banning? No. Both from early May 2008, around the time the first arbcom case was approaching its end.
• "Claims that LA Times is not a reliable source. Calls material taken straight from it "extremely poorly sourced" [634]": To be fair, Momento said it was "extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar." Is such a comment grounds for topic banning? Looking further into this, the edits this talk page section related to were these. The information inserted was actually wrong, since the DLM purchased the property, not Rawat, the LA Times headline notwithstanding. The cited article was a very short piece (< 300 words); a later, longer LA Times article (also cited in the edit) reported correctly that the property was purchased by the DLM. So was Momento all that wrong? Of course, Momento citing BLP in his subsequent deletion of this material is optimistic, and his edit summary caustic, but he was right in that it wasn't great sourcing. Many editors do not seem to understand the difference between writing a journalistic piece and writing an encyclopedia article. Last but not least, this altercation, too, predates the beginning of the first arbcom case, being from February 2008. If editors are having to cast their net that far back in time to gather incriminating evidence on Momento, this is noteworthy. Jayen466 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Will has added another link re the LA Times to his evidence: [635]. I believe Momento is correct in that an LA Times article of the "16-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji Weds His Blonde Secretary, 24" type is not necessarily the best and most authoritative source available.

  To give an example, the LA Times article states, among other things, that "Other devotees said [Rawat's wife] played the role of a stewardess in a film made for the mission entitled "Who is Maharaji?"

  In fact, editors are agreed from our analysis of the available sources that Rawat's wife did work as a real-life stewardess when she first met Rawat. After meeting Rawat and starting a relationship with him, she quit her job as a stewardess, and became his secretary a few weeks before their wedding.

  Andrea Cagan's biography of Rawat, which Will categorically rejects as a questionable source that should not be used, is confirmed here by sources such as the Florence Morning News ("She's Tried Everything Else And Now She's Mrs. Guru") which had interviewed Rawat's father-in-law: "The bride's father, construction superintendent Dale Johnson, said his daughter met the guru when she was a stewardess for United Air Lines. She quit the airline in February and became the guru's secretary." (They married in mid-May of that year. And of course Will was correct in asserting that Rawat's wife had worked as his secretary by the time they got married, a fact that Cagan does not mention and Momento seems to have been unaware of.)

  What clearly has been unhelpful is the sweeping, adversarial style of debate on the talk page: "Your sources are unreliable!" – "No, your sources are unreliable!" Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Jayen466 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Removes sourced material, claiming WP:REDFLAG: [636]": This was a revert by Momento of this edit by Msalt. The resulting talk page discussion is here. After several paragraphs of discussion, Msalt said, at 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC), "Good points all around. Until we see clear evidence that Rawat himself discussed extraterrestrials, I think the wise move (given BLP) is to leave it out."

  Look guys, I am not saying that Momento could not be more diplomatic, he definitely could, but each time I drill down into one of these situations the result seems to be a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" type of situation, and I find myself unable to judge that Momento's action was either intentionally disruptive or taking the article away from a version that was clearly good and neutral encyclopedic writing.

  In addition, this is yet another example from more than a year ago. Jayen466 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.